Bowsite.com

Once you read this you'll understand enough. NIPCC Climate Change Reconsidered 2 puts rational thought to the otherwise unchallenged religion of Climate change worshipers.

I gave ample time for the believers to post any proof ( a list of real effects of CO2 ) and not surprisingly, none was forthcoming. I will let NIPCC reports speak for themselves .

Unless provoked this will likely be the last post on this important subject. Happy reading . -Pi

I didn't realize you asked that Pi,.. honestly,.. I gave up reading your 5 page Treatises on global warming,.. I just couldn't take em anymore so I just pass over them,.. sorry.

So real efffects,... You mean like the acidification of the oceans? Or the lose of the great barrier reef? There are dozens that are occurring right now,.. you are just not open to seeing the scientific evidence,.. so why bother pointing them out to you? Scientists all over the world are screaming for us to wake up to what is happening,.. but if you are a closed mind,.. why bother,..?

What really worries me is if the perma frost melts and releases ass loads of methane into the atmosphere then it could cause a run away green house gas situation,.. meaning the warmer it gets,.. the more C02 is released,.. the warmer it gets,... but we can hope that will not occur,.. if it does ,.. Eh,..who cares,.. right? Those crazy scientists say that this has a real possibility of occurring.

Lastly,.. the website you link to is created by the Heartland institute,.. those are the same folks who fought that Tobacco was not bad for you in the 90's,.. remember them and their studies? They paraded their Fake News for years, and almost won. They are big money corporate shills,..

Here you can read about the Heartland Institute here,.. who funds them and what causes they champion,.. If you believe their bullshit on Tobacco from the 90's Pi,.. you are perfect to quote their Bullshit on Global Warming. It is the same exact tactic.

PS oil and gas industries are big contributors to this org.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

Oh shit am I "provoking" him?,.. someone shoot me now!

This is one challenge in this sort of discussion. I could post up a lot of work from groups who's primary purpose is public interest: NASA, NOAA, international climate groups etc and they are sort of "black balled" (bad, but close enough term) by folks who disagree with AGW as Liberal Hacks or out to keep a hoax going etc.

Because of that Ill look at the link. I know people (Pi I'm not pointing at you, I'm talking generally) look at any gvmt group and assume it's infused with liberal bias and indoctrinating and perpetuating a hoax... Those folks could say "Hey Will, if you wont look, then you are already hook line and sinker into what "they" want you to believe..."

Fair. Ill look.

I enjoy "Skeptic" magazine. Maybe I'm not the trusting sort... Ha ha ha! Actually, it's a great mag and does some really good reviews of various ideas... It's almost a "debunking" magazine. Here's a neat article from there titled: "How we know global warming is real"

https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/how-we-know-global-warming-is-real/

"The GBRMPA consider climate change, poor water quality, coastal development, and some impacts from fishing to be the area's major threats, but reef scientists Jon Day, Bob Pressey, Jon Brodie and Hughes stated that the "cumulative effects of many combined impacts" is the real issue."

These highly accredited people comment on NIPCC work. BB, you're just shouting the made up talking points and polluting the air again. Reviews of Climate Change Reconsidered climatechangereconsidered.org/reviews-of-climate-change-reconsidered

BB, I know you haven't read the NIPCC reports ( you wouldn't dare read a scientific assessment of the reports put out by IPCC) It is 900 pages of clear thinking on every aspect of the science and methods. Take a tranquilizer and do some reading. The IPCC a UN construct set out to prove "negative impacts" of CO2, not to evaluate what is happening in our environment and its many contributions. That alone is suspicious and bad science and several leaders in the effort have been so infuriated by the manipulation and half-truths that fall from this Government organization that they just had to get out.

Maybe you trust the Government to tell the truth and not to conjure up things, I heard you're a big James Comey / Hillary Clinton / Mueller/Lynch / Obama / S. Rice/ and all the related ass swabs/ fan but your lying -cheating -manipulators -at the helm days- are done and yesterdays wastewater. Time for a good flush and that will kill off your reefs for sure. But it ain't CO2 buddy boy.

Once you read this you'll understand enough. NIPCC Climate Change Reconsidered 2 puts rational thought to the otherwise unchallenged religion of Climate change worshipers.

And don't bullsh*t me BB . You are reading every word.

Here is some reading I suggest. Please let me know if you have specific things in here you would think are incorrect and I will try to address them specifically. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/temperature-is-rising#.WwNpa1WnGM8 https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/cold-snow-climate-change.html#.WwNpblWnGM8

Scientists do acknowledge humans are not the sole cause, but are a major contributor: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.WwNpfVWnGM8

Summary of peer reviewed publications documenting that the overwhelming majority of scientists agree humans are a major cause of climate change: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/scientists-agree-global-warming-happening-humans-primary-cause#.WwNphlWnGM9 The Forbes article you linked to saying only 36% of scientists agree with climate change was an opinion piece that interpreted the findings of a low quality publication incorrectly.

And, finally, no one with any scientific credibility says we are 100% certain about anything. Rather we have high confidence based on evidence. Scientists certainly acknowledge there are many unanswered questions, but based on the preponderance of evidence, there is a very high degree of confidence that humans are a leading contributor to climate change. See: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/certainty-vs-uncertainty.html#.WwNpl1WnGM8

From your reading assignment : -18- From first "document" real or not, I can't say. "H. Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Schools Many people lament the absence of educational material suitable for K-12 students on global warming that isn’t alarmist or overtly political. Heartland has tried to make material available to teachers but has had only limited success. Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. Moreover, material for classroom use must be carefully written to meet curriculum guidelines, and the amount of time teachers have for supplemental material is steadily shrinking due to the spread of standardized tests in K-12 education." Not exactly a confession of being disingenuous.

This and several other similar statements defend their position and intention to get their points across in an otherwise myopic education system.

"Science acknowledges humans are not the sole cause"... Well, that's a relief. And exactly the purpose of the dissenting voice. Again the findings of the NIPCC has given cause for fair dialogue and rational responses to IPCC. The addition of opinions that ramp up the severity of the IPCC reports are the problem. X-President O' and John the snitch Kerry among other cronies add their desired twist to the science, making it more than the report states as facts. Political manipulation at work.

The original 97% number was a finding of a handful of folks in an obscure survey and is not a realistic number. No one ever took a survey of the vast majority of earth scientists. and I see you didn't comment on the list of Scientist provided by WIKI who disagree with the catastrophic position. Seems like a well-accomplished bunch to me. Unless you have such a document that denies them in favor of 97% then it is not a provable point. More likely a fabrication. Even when the true number as some say , is something closer to 70% believe in man-made climate change then there is a serious disagreement. Several articles have examined this with the same findings. It is not that most don't believe we have an effect it is to the point that our effect is not as great as the alarmist people would have you believe. And upon further investigation, it is found that a substantial number of scientist do not think we should implement drastic measures in our economic policy regarding this. That is the point. All things considered, it is not the best course of action.

I have read all or most of your articles . Same old stuff without much substance. I believe we do have an effect on our natural world. That is not in dispute. But the projections are disputed on many fronts. The proposed Catastrophic events of the future are the projections and fantasies that scare people unnecessarily. Our planet is a changing dynamic place. ( look at Hawaii right now ) The ring of fire is active. Forest fires happen. People are usually to blame. Weather changes and unless you have a crystal ball for which we can use to look into the future we will have a very hard time deciding what should have been or could have been "if only we didn't live here."

Let's fight real pollution, erosion, runoff, land use, forest decimation, and practice energy conservation, sound farming practices. Let's get the Chinese and India to cut back on emissions and real pollution such as smog ( apparently Ozone as well ) so we are not fighting a pointless battle on one side of the globe while they run wild on the other.

A warming earth does not create drastic weather, quite the opposite. We are in a relatively calm period. It is true that a local warm water body can increase the volume of a storm but most of the warm spots are a result of shifting currents and there is nothing we can do about that. Nothing we did made them either.

Read Freeman Dyson. He will educate you with a sober approach to climate and economic policy. Since all the solar and wind projects we can muster up will not meet our energy needs, we are stuck with burning, like it or not, until some magic resource is discovered. Till then we must role with what mother nature puts out, we always have had to. I think that is the point.

The Reproductive Tolerance of a Temperate Coral to Ocean Acidification

Paper Reviewed Gizzi, F., de Mas, L., Airi, V., Caroselli, E., Prada, F., Falini, G., Dubinsky, Z. and Goffredo, S. 2017. Reproduction of an azooxanthellate coral is unaffected by ocean acidification. Scientific Reports 7: 13049, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-13393-1.

Introducing the reason for their study, Gizzi et al. (2017) write that "sexual reproduction represents a crucial process in the development and persistence of populations and its reduction threatens the resilience of species, leading to shifts in size and abundance of populations." Despite this importance, however, very few studies have examined the effects of ocean acidification on the sexual reproduction of corals. And for those that do, they are typically conducted in a laboratory setting, which often is quite different from conditions that exist in the complex natural environment.

Hoping to add some knowledge about the impact of ocean acidification on the sexual reproduction of a temperate coral in its natural environment, the team of eight researchers set out to conduct such an experiment in naturally acidified waters of the Tyrrhenian Sea (36.64°N, 15.11°E). There, a volcanic vent off the coast of Italy (the Panarea CO2 vent) emits nearly pure CO2 into the surrounding seawater, creating a natural pH gradient expanding outward from the vent some 34 meters.

Within these waters, Gizzi et al. transplanted sexually mature specimens of a temperate azooxanthellate solitary scleractinian coral (Leptopsammia pruvoti), which were obtained from a location less than 2 km away from the vent site, into one of four sites with mean seawater pH values representing conditions of normal (8.07), intermediate (7.87 and 7.74) and severe (7.40) ocean acidification. After three months, the scientists measured a number of reproductive parameters of the transplanted corals, attempting to discern if there were any effects of the differing seawater pH regimes.

Results of the analysis revealed, in the words of the authors, that the solitary non-zooxanthellate L. pruvoti showed "no effects on gametogenesis, spermatogenesis and embryogenesis along the pH gradient," which findings suggest that the "reproductive potential may be quite tolerant to decreasing pH" and that L. pruvoti "will be fine in [the] coming decades."

BB slinks away to the back of the room,.. LOL

PI Why all the new global warming threads started by you?

List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global ... https://en.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_conse..

BB, Your posts often slip in snippy or misleading remarks on a subject that concerns me and clearly come from a progressive source. I do enjoy the other things that you bring to the site, your often informative and interesting. But regarding politics and the environmental policies ... Well, I don't like the progressive movement. I have been civil in my presentation and you get personal. I sometimes respond in kind but would not do so if I was not provoked. So basically I posted the serious discussion to those who showed genuine interest and to you I just take you for your silly business and let you have it.

Thanks for the question.

I have never started a thread about global warming on the bow hunting site,.. how about you do the same?

I bet most here would like that,.. just a wild guess.

They have places and discussion forums for global warming and you can post your Heartland Institute articles over there?

I think there is room to talk about our physical environment, social policies and subjects that relate to our hunting interests and I appreciate such discussions. Those things include our governments (local / State and Federal) actions and attitudes. It is relevant. No harm in not reading peoples post. It doesn't cost a thing. Maybe some people are learning or discovering or taking an interest in new things. I have had no negative P/M's to lead me to think otherwise. ( all welcome to do so )

What I will agree to is, to try to ignore your inflaming statements and mischaracterizing of my position on the subjects at hand. I'm not good at that and maybe never will be. Pussification is not my thing. If you continue to make such statements and comments I will likely defend myself accordingly.

There are places for your snippy horshigit and you can play with them all you want. But where I am is where I stand tall.

Serious question, this would be a neat sociological/cultural study... Has anyone ever conducted a study of climate related scientists - ideally those who have published in peer reviewed journals on AGW/CC to look at how the results of their research fall - relative to their self proclaimed Liberal / Conservative mentality?

I may pubmed that to see.

As for bias infecting study... My experiences show that University and public fund studies, while I'm sure it sneaks in... they seem to have less results pressure than private sector studies or privately funded studies.

Great example from a previous career in research. We were testing the impact of a mushroom species on human endurance. We had, for sports science and nutriceutical research a big cohort, almost 600 folks started, about 500 finished the study. We did a solid amount of analysis, blood chem changes, time to exhaustion, aerobic power, electrophysiology etc. It was a solid, double blind placebo controlled trial. No crossover, which would have added to it... but the funds weren't there.

Long story short, the data showed zilch. Maybe trend towards something good (smidge more time to exhaustion) but it didnt have statistical significance, not even close.

So, we get a visit from the company who payed for the trial, their PhD's, who proceeded to mine the snot out of our data, still finding nothing... Until eventually, they just settled on this, paraphrased, it's been almost 20 years "Cordyceps Sinesis may increase endurance!". Ham sandwiches might as well - with just as much statistical power...

I saw that several times....

When a company pays, they want results. Doesnt mean it will always be there. Heck, in the paper that was published on it they didnt fudge anything, if you READ the full paper you would see that. But they titled it pretty much what I paraphrased above, making for a very nice marketing byline for the company.

Again, not saying U or fed/gvmt grants are exempt from bias. Just that in work we collaborated on or that I've seen... there is less than when looking at corporately funded research.

And please note, that's not saying ALL corporate research is bogus. That's just as untrue.

But maybe listen to your own words also about being snippy,.. see post 3 above.

Most likely that was posted prior to seeing my apology,..

Take care Pi,.. no bad feelings here.

Please note I am not saying all people have no integrity. But if you don't quit or get fired now and again for standing up ... well, you know , little piggies.

Duke admits faked data “potentially affected” grant applications ... https://retractionwatch.com/.../duke-admits-faked-data-potentially-affected-grant-appli...

"Government representatives are not permitted to edit these book-length reports. In the end, it is the authors who bear the sole responsibility for the content of their chapters. Government representatives, however, do participate in the line-by-line review and revision of the much shorter summary for policymakers, or SPM, for each technical report.

Imagine that? Government representatives ... review and (REVISE) revision for the summery of Policymakers. Hhmm. Stinky town.

Now-a-days, those who say it's a hoax are winning the day... thanks to Trump & EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt who are taking steps to undo previous efforts to fight climate change. For the sake of all of us, they better be right!

For instance: the proposition of greater damage by storms is calculated on 6 degrees of Global warming and that is not a reasonable temperature increase. 1-2 degrees over the next century is more realistic at the current rate of increasing output. Even if it was a 6 degrees change ( won't happen), the addition of storm intensity would be added rain at around 10-15 % which is not a great thing but on top of 2-4 feet of water is really not worth measuring. However, the frequency of storms would also decrease ( a warmer planet works that way). That's a good thing.

So no worries Xi, Jimbo, the climate is not going to "run away" ... it doesn't work like that.

Could you site your source for this statement,.. I would really like to see that one.

Thank you.

” Nevertheless, the IPCC has expressed confidence in projections of future climate, saying the temperature sensitivity of Earth’s climate system in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations “is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C"

This is the guess of IPCC. however : To understand one part of this, one must understand the whole of it.

Maybe it would be easier if you provide the math or equation that is being used by the IPCC to guess at their guesstimate. Clearly, they don't have it figured mathematically or there would be a much smaller fudge factor.

""The amount of influence that CO2 has is almost maxed out, More is just more.""

Could you site your source for this statement,.. I would really like to see that one.

Thank you Pi.

Noooo Jimbo... I'm going to slowly ween myself off the CF I think... it's toooo much. :)

;o)

By the time mankind finally realizes what theyve done itll be way too late..for all we know it may be too late now, we're just squeezing a few more quid out of her..we've already had our path unkowingly chosen for us..so sit back and enjoy the ride